It seems that any change to the ecological status quo is regarded as a problem or disaster. We know from the historical record that nothing in nature stays in a steady state. We know that changes in ecology are often boom bust cycles that eventually find an equilibrium
The problem is that most of the “changes in ecology” that happened in the last two centuries boil down to the human species consistently and predictably expanding into new territories and displacing any other species originally living there. This phenomenon is a complete novelty in the historical record, and the only possible equilibrium it can eventually lead to is the survival of a very limited amount of species: ours, the domestic ones that we need to eat, and the ones that live on our dejections. These bacteria apparently belong to the latter group.
I'm confident, however, that sooner or later this will end - and they'll introduce new revolutionary software products with a uniform appearance, and user interfaces exposing consistent and predictable behaviour. Why, Microsoft have already started, they've reintroduced the Windows 3.1 look-and-feel (flat controls, window title in the middle, system-modal dialog boxes taking up the whole screen) and they're selling it as a novelty. I'm less convinced, though, by the Windows 1.0 features they've been introducing as well (windows can't overlap, but hey, with the upcoming improvements you'll be able to run one application and a half at the same time! Conditions apply.)
[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun